Chat Room Libel

I'm in Texas, Plaintiff is in California. I have not found any caselaw that covers this one. It's not your usual online defamation suit. Plaintiff is claiming injury suffered because of allegedly defamatory screen names posted in a chat room. The screen names were spoofing the screen names used by plantiff and did not contain the real name of the plaintiff. As an example, plaintiff's screen name could be "Great6hammer" and the spoof name that is called defamatory would have been "Great6liar" or "Great6pravaricates" or "Great6fool". Are you kidding me? Anyone that's ever been in a chatroom knows this goes on all the time and plaintiff could have left any time. Defendant did not type into the room at all, the name was posted in the roster window that shows the names of the chatters even if they don't chat. I'm sure this is worth a million dollars in a court of law. I have no money, no savings, no house, no insurance, no lawyer and lots of bills so why would someone sue over this? They are doing it anyway.

Answer the complaint, or better, get an attorney to answer. I bet the suit is pro per.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The important question is how successful such a lawsuit would be. That being said, has a suit actually been filed, or is someone just threatening to do so? If it's just threats, they're being ridiculous. A successful suit is going to require a lot more than somebody making fun of an anonymous screen name.

Browse the Libel/Slander/Defamation forums and pay particular attention to posts by Quincy. That should tell you everything you need to know.

If you called someone a liar (unless it was clearly “verbal horseplay”) you gave him legitimate grounds to file suit. There are people who take their reputation very seriously and they are not going to sit still while their integrity is attacked.

You are free to call anyone a fool.

The context in which this name-calling took place is extremely important to the value of such a claim. If the screen name created the overall impression that you were saying, “This guy is a liar”, you have a problem.

Assuming there is not much more to your story, you would file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. You would say that a screen name does not qualify as a “statement of fact” and therefore cannot be defamatory.

In my opinion, a screen name does qualify as a statement of fact. I doubt the issue has been litigated yet, so the judge in your case could go in any direction.

If suit has actually been filed, your best bet is to contact the plaintiff, inform him of your financial situation, and ask if there is a way to resolve the situation before either of you starts incurring a lot of costs.

Thanks very much for your time and comments. It's great to know I'm not the only one that thinks this is absurd.
They filed the action a year and a half ago. I phoned their attorney within a few days of receiving the original subpoena and advised him that I have no money, no savings, no house, no insurance, no money for lawyer and lots of bills and they keep it up. On top of that, my ISP did not notify me that they had been served with a subpoena requesting my private information and identity in violation of their own privacy rules, the state codes where they are based and federal codes. The ISP gave them the information anyway. I filed an answer out of fear of default not knowing I could have filled a demurrer and or motion to dismiss. I'm a carpenter not a lawyer. You can imagine how much time I have wasted on the internet researching to find out how to defend this myself. The California Court site is totally confusing and I still don't know how to file properly with court so I'm afraid to try it. They are now suing another member of my family and the small construction company and I have about 20 days left to file a demurrer or an answer. They know my family member that they are now adding as a defendant is ill and cannot leave home. I see only default on the horizon.
“Verbal horseplay” is exactly what it was. The making of names has been going on in that chat room for a long time and is still going on today. One may call someone a liar if it's true and even if it isn't, it's not libel unless one knows it's provably false when they say it. The names did not state a provable fact and are opinion and hyperbole.
The point is, the fact that someone can file an absurd lawsuit like this is an insult to attorneys and courts around the world. People will be afraid to say anything for fear of having to spend a fortune on defending something this ludicrous. It will harm real libel litigation and cause insurance companies to omit any coverage for defamation defense. The first question the plaintiff's lawyer asked me when I said I didn't have anything or have any way to hire a lawyer was "what about your insurance?" How obvious is that? They want a settlement and don't want to actually go to trial. Does anyone think a finding for the plaintiffs will stand up to an appeal? They can't possibly have any real damages and, therefore, will not be able to produce any proof of any. What is the definition of malicious law suit or malicious prosecution?

I am surprised that there is an attorney involved, as I find it hard to believe any attorney would find this a legitimate cause of action. Unless the person who uses the screen name is identified or identifiable by the postings, then there is no actionable defamation. Being called a liar is rarely grounds enough for a successful suit, even with an identified person.

That said, you have, apparently, been sued anyway. The ISP had no choice but to turn over your real identity to the attorney, as the ISP was ordered to by the court with the subpoena, but it is standard practice for the ISP to notify you first, before revealing your identity, so you have the opportunity to answer the court. I find it very strange that they did not.

You really should have an attorney, as this will be difficult for you to handle on your own. Of course this suit seems to be frivolous, but the filing of the suit against you itself is not an abuse of process. A malicious prosecution action can only be brought after the original lawsuit is decided in your favor. If you win an unjustified lawsuit, you can then file a malicious prosecution lawsuit, with your first piece of evidence being the court's decision in the first suit. Malicious prosecution is the intentional and malicious pursuing of a legal action brought without probable cause and dismissed in favor of the defendant. You must have this "dismissed in favor of defendant", however, to bring such a suit.

If you win the first suit and it was adequately demonstrated that there was no probable cause for the suit in the first place, and the court then decides in your favor in the malicious prosecution suit, then you can collect compensatory damages (attorney fees for both cases can be included in this) and damages for any reputational harm the lawsuit caused.

I am still puzzled by this whole suit, however. If you have a law school or free legal clinic near you, have them review it all with you. I honestly think you need some sort of help with this.

Edit to add: I would not give the attorney for the Plaintiff any of your financial information or insurance information over the phone. And why are your family members being sued, anyway???

They want a settlement and don't want to actually go to trial.

Click to expand...

I'll bet they don't.

Quaere seems to think this may actually be a viable suit. I'm not an attorney, and if Quaere is I don't have much confidence in contradicting his opinion; however, I still see nothing that meets the standard for libel. I can't even believe the plaintiff actually found an attorney to take the case--unless it's an attorney who believes it's worth taking a shot at intimidating you into settling.

First of all, it was an AOL screen name that was "defamed", not a person. Of course that screen name belonged to a person, but what damages were suffered by that person; as in, his personal identity?

Secondly, is the plaintiff's screen name unique, and is there no room for doubt that the offending screen name might have referred to any number of similar names?

Let me use this as an example: Quaere is a liar. <----There. Did I just commit libel? How? What damages will Quaere suffer as a result of me stating my opinion that he is a liar? (Of course that's not really my opinion, I'm just trying to make a point. Please don't sue me )

Which brings me to: It's my understanding that truth is an absolute defense, as is opinion. If SuedNSoCal can show that this person did lie, or, at least, SuedNSoCal thought he did, what more does he need?

Again, SuedNSoCal, please don't lend more credibility to my opinion just because I'm agreeing with you, but at this point I still think you have a very strong defense.

Edited to add: I spent so much time thinking and editing (and feeding the cats and watching Ugly Betty) that by the time I posted this, Quincy had arrived. But I hate for that to be a wasted hour so I'm still going to post it.

Your post was definitely worth posting, Clt747 - possibly because I happen to agree with everything you said.

There really isn't a libel action here worth pursuing, at least from what has been indicated by SuedNSoCal's posts. That is what puzzles me.

It is certainly possible that intimidating SuedNSoCal into a settlement of some sort is the purpose of the suit, and that could be the most logical explanation for it, but why any attorney would handle this is a big question mark.

Unless, of course, the attorney handling it IS the "Great6hammer" liar.

quincy said:

why any attorney would handle this is a big question mark.

Click to expand...

It has to be the kind of attorney that will take anything as long as the plaintiff can fork over his fee.

SuedNSoCal, please keep us updated. I'm really interested in knowing how this all turns out.

They are asking the court for a million for actual damages, exemplary damages, medical expenses, punitive damages, court costs, all costs of the suit and an injunction to make us stay out of the chat room.

They claim that because of the screen names that are "defamatory on their face", they have suffered and will continue to suffer, general damages, including without limitation, loss of reputation, shame, mortification and hurt feelings, past and future mental and physical pain and suffering, and emotional distress, depression, anxiety, sleeplessness and loss of enjoyment of life, exposure to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy.

mortification and hurt feelings? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This has to be...has to be...a case of "shoot at everything you see and hope you hit something." Seriously--is this guy's lawyer qualified as in "graduated from law school", or is he qualified as in "has all four seasons of Boston Legal on DVD"???

You need to find an attorney that will give you a free consultation and you need to start wondering whether his insurance will cover him for your countersuit.

Not only is this the most absurdly ridiculous thing I've ever seen on this site, but now I have to go to all the trouble of looking up "obloquy."

Edit: Okay, so he's not only an idiot, he's a redundant idiot.

Were I so inclined, I'd remove the case to Federal Court and hope to get in a motion for summary judgment asking for sanctions before the judge remanded it back to state court for not having the appropriate "amount in controversy". I find Federal judges are much less forgiving of these ridiculous cases than state court judges. (Plus, any numbskull attorney who files a case like this will likely need a new pair of pants if they think they'll have to litigate in Federal court).

But that's just me

Tell him you're going to file an osculari podicem motion and he needs to respond to that ASAP.

They are now suing another member of my family and the small construction company and I have about 20 days left to file a demurrer or an answer.

Click to expand...

Back up a bit and explain how it is that you filed an answer more than a year ago and now you are getting ready to file another answer.

They know my family member that they are now adding as a defendant is ill and cannot leave home. I see only default on the horizon.

Click to expand...

I don’t understand where you are in the litigation. Are you asking about your own options or the options of the new defendants?

If any defendant still has time to do so, should make a special appearance only and remove the case to Federal Court as YAG suggested. Once the case is in Federal Court, any defendant that can do so should object to CA jurisdiction. Any defendant that can still do so should move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. If they are asking for a million dollars, there is a sufficient amount in controversy.

“Verbal horseplay” is exactly what it was.

Click to expand...

I used that term to mean “joking around” in a friendly manner.

One may call someone a liar if it's true and even if it isn't, it's not libel unless one knows it's provably false when they say it.

Click to expand...

You are only half right. Whether you KNOW the statement is false or not, you can be held responsible for damages caused by a false statement.

The names did not state a provable fact and are opinion and hyperbole.

Click to expand...

It depends on the context. If someone was insisting he’s never had any kind of STD and you called him a liar, depending on the context it could be taken as an implication that you have knowledge of defamatory facts.

The point is, the fact that someone can file an absurd lawsuit like this is an insult to attorneys

Click to expand...

No one is worried about insulting attys, lol!

People will be afraid to say anything for fear of having to spend a fortune on defending something this ludicrous.

Click to expand...

If what you said was really trivial, it is not likely to lead to problems. I suspect there is much more to this story.

They can't possibly have any real damages and, therefore, will not be able to produce any proof of any.

Click to expand...

Calling someone a liar is not defamatory per se so there will be no presumption of damages. They will have to prove real damages but unfortunately, that is as easy as providing some records to indicate they’ve gone to the Dr.s for stress.

It is possible to defame a screen name. A screen name has a reputation which can be harmed. It makes no difference whether anyone knows the “legal” name behind the screen name.

Let me use this as an example: Quaere is a liar. <----There. Did I just commit libel?

Click to expand...

Depends on the context.

How? What damages will Quaere suffer as a result of me stating my opinion that he is a liar?

Click to expand...

It depends on what you were implying I was lying about, the extent of my involvement in the Internet community, etc. If your statement was capable of changing how others view me and the statement was false, I have damages. A jury may find that my damages are only worth $1.00, but if I want to take that risk and drag you through the courts, that is my right.

Which brings me to: It's my understanding that truth is an absolute defense, as is opinion. If SuedNSoCal can show that this person did lie, or, at least, SuedNSoCal thought he did, what more does he need?

Click to expand...

“Thinking” something was true, is not a defense to defamation. It can mitigate damages, but it is not a defense.

While the case sounds absurd, I have to assume there is much more to it than "Sued" has shared.

BTW, I am not an atty Sued.